UK drops demand for backdoor into Apple encryption

https://www.theverge.com/news/761240/uk-apple-us-encryption-back-door-demands-dropped

by iamdamian • 11 months ago

276 109 11 months ago

theverge.com

Retr0id2• 11 months ago

It's great that they're dropping it, but concerning that it was only because of pushback from US politicians.

Also important to note:

With the order now reportedly removed, it’s unclear if Apple will restore access to its ADP service in the UK.

ExoticPearTree2• 11 months ago

For sure they didn't drop it out of the goodness of their heart.

Retr0id2• 11 months ago

There was once an idea that elected politicians should champion the interests of their constituents.

hardlianotion2• 11 months ago

Just rejoice that in this one case, the spinelessness of our elected representatives has some, perhaps temporary, upside.

terminalshort• 11 months ago

How is this an example of spinelessness?

stephen_g3• 11 months ago

The other concerning thing is that it took the otherwise awful Trump administration to push back, while the Biden administration was reportedly going to look the other way (and have been accused of knowing about it but hiding it from Congress) [1].

1. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/02/26/wapo-biden-just...

BowBun• 11 months ago

See this is the kind of lying I expect from politicians - misleading people about their policy decisions. Not the constant challenging of recorded fact.

johnnyanmac6• 11 months ago

Well, Google and Co. are trying to push it worldwide anyway under the ruse of UK law, regardless of administration. I don't see them countering all this AI ID stuff.

I feel this is more of an "Earth isn't yours to conquer" move rather than one really aimed at protecting US Citizen's data. Governments is simply fighting over who can control how we navigate our tech.

varispeed• 11 months ago

The backdoors might still go ahead. What if backing down is just for show? In the end they don't have to let public know, but this information serves a purpose - potential suspects might now think it is okay to use now and fall right into the trap.

stronglikedan• 11 months ago

only because of pushback from US politicians

Like it or hate it, that's still the way of the world.

Canada• 11 months ago

They will try again

oscord• 11 months ago

Which means they got it.

rusk• 11 months ago

Or the MOD told them they’ve had it all this time and don’t draw any more attention to it

globalnode• 11 months ago

but what about the children! /s

a5c11• 11 months ago

Don't worry, politicians will take care of them.

neom• 11 months ago

Don't many governments themselves use Apple, especially the Americans? I always found this a weird demand if they do.

KerrAvon• 11 months ago

Governments generally use special procedures for securing secret information, which makes this a non-issue for government use, assuming government employees follow the procedures, which apparently the Trump administration doesn’t.

thewebguyd4• 11 months ago

Even if they did, it'd be like the proposed chat control, where there are carve outs for politicians.

Rules for thee, not for me.

grahar64• 11 months ago

Or did they get what they want?

rdm_blackhole• 11 months ago

Small reprieve. Let's hope that Apple pushes back on Chat Control as well.

flumpcakes3• 11 months ago

Good news for UK people.

I am all for laws designed to protect children, and stop terrorism. But these 'back door' laws are nearly always very poorly thought out and offers new avenues for 'normal' people to come to harm.

amelius• 11 months ago

Meanwhile, who believes that the US has no backdoors in these devices?

johnisgood• 11 months ago

Hopefully no one, in services available globally (i.e. not US-specific), just to be sure.

sedivy94• 11 months ago

Why litigate it when you can buy it from the NSO / IDF?

philistine• 11 months ago

Cold logic dictates otherwise. The UK is part of Five Eyes: total data sharing between intelligence agencies. If that were the case, why would the UK need a law to get data it already has?

sneak2• 11 months ago

It’s not really a secret; it’s by design and it’s public. iCloud is not end to end encrypted by default. Apple and the state can read the on-by-default iCloud Backup which contains your iMessage sync keys and all your historical iMessages and attachments. iCloud Photos, Contacts, and Mail are all similarly not e2ee and trivially readable by Apple, DHS/FBI, and anyone else under FAA702 (aka PRISM, aka the #1 most used US intel source) without a warrant.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/exclusive-apple-droppe...

Apple processes FAA702 orders on upwards of 80,000 Apple IDs per year per their own annual transparency report.

Snowden himself said that they see so many nudes that they got desensitized to it.

This clever setup allows them to claim iMessage is e2ee while still escrowing keys in effective plaintext to Apple in the iCloud Backup, rendering the e2ee totally ineffective.

I think “backdoor” is probably an appropriate term for it, but they have made no secret whatsoever of it.

It’s terrifying to think that the US federal government can read every iMessage in the entire world across a billion devices (except China, where the CCP can do the same) in effectively realtime. The power that that enables (if only in blackmail ability) is staggering.

chaostheory• 11 months ago

Back doors just make the device or platform less secure.

ACCount372• 11 months ago

I am very much against laws designed to protect children and stop terrorism.

By now, "think of the children" is a tired cliche of anti-freedom laws. If "protecting children" requires sacrificing freedom for everyone, then children should not be protected.

Every time I come across another anti-freedom law wrapped in an excuse of "think of the children", I question whether the worshippers of Moloch had the right idea after all.

flumpcakes3• 11 months ago

I am very much against laws designed to protect children and stop terrorism.

This can't be true. You're against a law that says a convicted child rapist cannot work in schools? You're against a law that says people can't take bombs onto planes?

I think you're being dishonest in your statements, or do not care about anyone else in society.

thewebguyd4• 11 months ago

If "protecting children" requires sacrificing freedom for everyone, then children should not be protected.

Agreed. It all goes back to the famous quote "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (granted, the quote was about taxation but the principle applies here)

Much like cybersecurity, it's always a trade off between absolute freedom and absolute safety. You don't get both. Every "safety" measure that gets put in place reduces your level of individual freedom. Go to far in the safety direction and you lose all your freedoms, and that trade off IMO is not worth it.

throw0101a2• 11 months ago

I am all for laws designed to protect children, and stop terrorism.

The usual suspects:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

fmajid2• 11 months ago

The real target: journalists, activists and whistleblowers

ben_w4• 11 months ago

Mm.

Unfortunately, I'm highly confident that 90% of the intelligence community looks at us insisting that crypto standards be inviolable, and thinks we're all as infuriatingly naïve as a ChatGPT comment.

I don't know the true risks of terrorist organisations. I doubt I ever will, because the intelligence community wants to keep its methods secret in order to avoid mildly competent terrorists from avoiding stupid (from MI5/6's POV) mistakes. The counter-point is that such secrecy makes the intelligence organisations themselves a convenient unlit path for a power-hungry subgroup to take over a nation.

Regarding sexual abuse, the stats are much easier to find, and are much much worse than most people realise to the extent that most people either don't understand what those numbers mean or don't believe them: If you're an American, on your first day in high school, by your second class you have more than even odds of having met a pupil who had already been assaulted, most likely by someone close to the victim such as a relative.

I don't see how any level of smartphone surveillance will do anything to stop that. Or indeed, any surveillance that isn't continuous monitoring of every kid to make sure such acts don't find them.

Refreeze5224• 11 months ago

Unfortunately, I'm highly confident that 90% of the intelligence community looks at us insisting that crypto standards be inviolable, and thinks we're all as infuriatingly naïve as a ChatGPT comment

Until they can prove this is the case, and not just fear mongering to justify their massive budgets, overreach and assaults on civil liberties, I am happy to continue being considered naïve by them.

kbelder• 11 months ago

If you're an American, on your first day in high school, by your second class you have more than even odds of having met a pupil who had already been assaulted, most likely by someone close to the victim such as a relative.

You're saying that the rate of sexual assault is.. a few percent?

Too high! I agree. But it's bad form to give convoluted examples in order to give the impression that the actual number is worse than it is.

stephen_g3• 11 months ago

I think the problem with terrorism is it's simultaneously more and less than they think. More from the groups they don't expect, and less from the ones they expect it to come from and are surveillance and infiltrating.

For example, looking back over the history from what has been declassified in my country, the intelligence services spent a huge amount of time and resources infiltrating and surveillance communist groups and university socialist clubs, and then seemed to be completely blind-sided by the rise of Islamic terrorism when 9/11 rolled around... In a similar vein I think to how the UK is spending all this time going after people waving signs supporting Palestinians - they probably honestly think there's a real threat there, and it will turn out to be a huge waste of time and the next real terror threat will come out of some other unexpected group.

As for assault - yes, it's usually someone they know. Which is why it's ridiculous the resources they spend trying to backdoor private messaging etc. in the name of "protecting the children" when much of it's happening in person...

hermannj3144• 11 months ago

As a believer in equal protection under the law, it is never a win when a powerful company or government lobbies for a specific carve out for only it's customers or its country. Human rights like privacy don't belong to those who bought the right phone or were born on the right piece of soil.

This isn't a win, this is solidifying and reinforcing the idea that different laws should exist for different classes of people - those who can afford to make the government look the other way and those that can't.

Congratulations to Apple on lobbying for its own money. Very noble.

chrismustcode• 11 months ago

I agree it should be across the spectrum where people have the same rights to privacy.

those who can afford to make the government look the other way and those that can't.
Congratulations to Apple on lobbying for its own money. Very noble.

But what’s your implication here, that Apple shouldn’t have fought it?

hermannj3144• 11 months ago

As far as I know, the blue/green mentality is a cultural issue for Apple. They would be fine if Android users had their data read by the government, because that injustice is a market differentiator for them they can then sell.

I'm not saying they shouldn't lobby for what they believe in, but Apple always stops short of making the world a better place and seems to care only if their walled garden is secure.

consp• 11 months ago

Probably that it should be a generalization and apple should have fought for that and not apply just to one particular operator.

throwfaraway4• 11 months ago

it is never a win when a powerful company or government lobbies for a specific carve out for only it's customers or its country.

This wasn't an "Apple only" law -- it would have affected all platforms with data on customers that live outside the UK.

This isn't a win, this is solidifying and reinforcing the idea that different laws should exist for different classes of people - those who can afford to make the government look the other way and those that can't.

Corporations are not people. The people can afford to vote out politicians making laws that go against the will of the people.

bendigedig• 11 months ago

This wasn't an "Apple only" law -- it would have affected all platforms with data on customers that live outside the UK.

Yeah, the law still exists. Apple just successfully managed to refuse to comply with a request made under it.

catigula4• 11 months ago

Unfortunately the internet is just going to be these ChatGPT comments now, isn't it.

DaiPlusPlus• 11 months ago

I checked; their post has good ol' fashioned hyphens, no em-dashes, so it's less likely to be slop.

hermannj3144• 11 months ago

I am a human being, but I have been training on ChatGPT conversations for a few years, is it starting to show?

accrual• 11 months ago

Do we really think an account that's been here since 2009 and claims to be a software developer is using ChatGPT to write comments on Hacker News?

throw0101a2• 11 months ago

Congratulations to Apple on lobbying for its own money. Very noble.

First they came for the Apple fanboys, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Apple fanboy.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came

If the UK had 'won' again Apple, do you not think that the Android ecosystem would be next? If the UK had 'won', do you not think that Turkey, India, China, etc, would not be lining up as well?

Melatonic3• 11 months ago

Doesn't the UK law already apply to all those others ?

lenerdenator• 11 months ago

Any port in a storm.

lamontcg• 11 months ago

Weird way to manage to do enough contortions to make this all Apple's fault.

bigyabai• 11 months ago

It's Apple's fault. They abandoned principled security a long, long time ago if you were paying attention. Chinese iCloud users have no protection against state-authorized backdoors since Apple removed the hardware security modules[0] that protect user encryption keys (at the PRC's request). Apple doesn't care about protecting their users above and beyond the reach of the state, state surveillance is an inevitability.

When you start down a slippery slope like this, you burn trust and make people demand transparency. It's impossible for me to say that I'm any more secure as an American user - no trusted third-parties actually audit Apple's American iCloud servers for such backdoors. Users trusting Apple for security are (unfortunately) fish in a barrel, same as ever.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/12/business/apple-china-data...

pydry• 11 months ago

It's not their fault. They did the right thing, which luckily coincided with what is best for their bottom line this one time.

eviks• 11 months ago

This is an obvious win when fewer people are under the boot even if some people remain they're. It's not a universal win, for sure, but let not perfect be the cause to ignore the good.

jrflowers• 11 months ago

You have a good point. Privacy is a human right, but nobody should be able to fight for it. People or organizations trying to influence the governments that they live or operate under is wrong, as governments (all of them, globally) should simply do the right thing automatically, all the time.

Sadly every time I’ve tried to explain this to people they always say “you are bleeding a lot” and “dude you just fell down so many stairs. I have never seen anyone fall down that many stairs” or “your head sustained the entire impact of your full bodyweight when you finally reached the bottom of those stairs, how are you even standing?” so I don’t think this is a conversation a lot of people are ready to have

stephen_g3• 11 months ago

I find the snark in your comment very weird and misplaced... Consider what the alternative is - Apple isn't allowed to talk about this, so they would have just had to silently backdoor their encryption for all their users all around the world so the UK intelligence organisations could access anyone Apple user's data...

Honestly probably nobody would have noticed that, and it would have been the path of least resistance to just comply. Some informed technical people might abandon Apple's platform, but the masses wouldn't have noticed... So how is this "Apple on lobbying for its own money"?

Honestly that last line just comes across as unhinged... Trying to read your comment in the most generous light but it's not close to reality...

johnnyanmac6• 11 months ago

it is never a win when a powerful company or government lobbies for a specific carve out for only it's customers or its country.

I don't think that is the case here. It's a "secret order" so it's never sure, but there aren't a lot of global tech companies who will comply to give a single government their worldwide data.

crinkly• 11 months ago

So when can I have ADP back?

Bet that's not happening...

HeckFeck• 11 months ago

We'll get ADB back before we get ADP back.

tehwebguy• 11 months ago

Title should say "reportedly drops" or "according to US official." No proof is offered other than a tweet from Tulsi Gabbard.

lotsofpulp• 11 months ago

I wouldn’t have even bothered to click on the comments if that was in the title. Thanks for illuminating the lack of credible source.

strangescript• 11 months ago

more important things to yell about now like global id and age verification and doing everything in their power to hamstring AI development

orangejuice45• 11 months ago

another reason to award the Nobel Prize to DJT if it was ever necessary

Astro-Domine• 11 months ago

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

indymike• 11 months ago

First rule of backdoors: the intended user may not be the only user.

pacifika• 11 months ago

Apple can no longer offer Advanced Data Protection (ADP) in the United Kingdom to new users.

Still there.

Melatonic3• 11 months ago

Yeah if this is true - bit sketchy

oliwarner• 11 months ago

... says the most "truthy" US government since records began.

I don't want to be overly cynical but I'm resigned to never truly know details of national security. I have opinions but nobody is listening to them.

alfiedotwtf• 11 months ago

See you all around in a few months when they try the exact same thing :head slap:

rtkwe• 11 months ago

For now... they've tried and dropped this a half dozen times over the years.

BCM43• 11 months ago

“As a result, the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a ‘back door’ that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties.”

Back doors to end-to-end encryption are considered bad now? Someone should tell the FBI. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/lawful-access/lawful-...

Ms-J• 11 months ago

The reason the UK dropped the demand is because they already have backdoor access to personal data using multiple methods, and to make the topic disappear for the time being.

Never use a mobile for anything that requires privacy or security. It's the intelligence agencies favourite tool.

gausswho• 11 months ago

Smoke and mirrors. The UK government got what they want with Apple disabling ADP. Until that's turned on, all iCloud backups are available to them.

That Apple can even claim it encrypts your data is such a bald-faced lie when Advanced Data Protection defaults to off.

UK drops demand for backdoor into Apple encryption

Related Stories